Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:28:53.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Use of the Sulfonylurea-Tolerant Soybean Trait to Reduce Soybean Response to Prosulfuron Soil Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam H. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
F. William Simmons*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to examine the effects of the sulfonylurea-tolerant (ST) soybean and fall tillage on reducing rotational soybean response to soil-applied prosulfuron across a range of soil pH values. Prosulfuron (10 and 20 g ai/ha) was applied in the fall to simulate the maximum amount of carryover theoretically possible from corn weed control systems. ST soybean reduced effects of prosulfuron soil residues on soybean grain yield. Increased soil pH led to greater prosulfuron carryover as indicated by the differential in ST and non-ST soybean and grain yield responses. Tillage (chisel plow) did not decrease non-ST soybean response to prosulfuron soil residues. Soybean injury 30 d after emergence was well correlated with eventual yield losses in non-ST soybean. Greater soybean injury and yield loss was observed on a silt loam soil with 0.8% organic carbon than on silt loams with greater than 2.5% organic carbon.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13:264270.Google Scholar
Braschi, I., Pusino, A., Gessa, C., and Boolag, J. M. 2000. Degradation of primisulfuron by a combination of chemical and microbiological processes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:25652571.Google Scholar
Bray, L. D., Heard, N. E., Overman, M. C., Vargo, J. D., King, D. L., Lawrence, L. J., and Phelps, A. W. 1997. Hydrolysis of prosulfuron at pH 5: evidence for resonance-stabilized triazine cleavage product. Pestic. Sci 15:5664.Google Scholar
Burton, J. D., Ma, G., Coble, H. D., and Corbin, F. T. 1997. Physiological mechanisms for differential responses of three weed species to prosulfuron. Weed Sci. 45:642647.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665672.Google Scholar
Dinelli, G., Vicari, A., Bonetti, A., and Catizone, P. 1997. Hydrolytic dissipation of four sulfonylurea herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:19401945.Google Scholar
Hahn, K. L. and Hughes, M. R. 1993. Weed control options for “STS” soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 48:80.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Fawcett, R. S., and Owen, M. D. K. 1989. Effects of tillage on trifluralin residue carryover injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 37:609615.Google Scholar
Hultgren, R. P., Hudson, R. J. M., and Sims, G. K. 2002. Effects of soil pH and soil water content on prosulfuron dissipation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:32363243.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153155.Google Scholar
Obermeier, M. R. and Kapusta, G. 1996. Postemergence broadleaf weed control in corn (Zea mays) with CGA 152005. Weed Technol. 10:689698.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Thomas, R. J. 2001. Injury and yield effects on crops grown in CGA 152005-treated soil. Weed Technol. 15:594597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of tillage and application method on corn (Zea mays) response to imidazolinone residues in soil. Weed Technol. 12:281285.Google Scholar
Sabadie, J. 1996. Alcoholysis and chemical hydrolysis of bensulfuron-methyl. Weed Res 36:441448.Google Scholar
[SAS] Staistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 235237.Google Scholar
Sebastian, S. A., Fader, G. M., Ulrich, J. F., Forney, D. R., and Chaleff, R. S. 1989. Semi dominant soybean mutation for resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides. Crop Sci 29:14031408.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. M. and Stoller, E. W. 1996. Physiological mechanism in the synergism between thifensulfuron and imazethapyr in sulfonylurea-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:209214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., and Wax, L. M. 2002. Effects of moisture, temperature, and biological activity on the degradation of isoxaflutole in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:56265633.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Influence of tillage on soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grass and legume forage crops in Missouri. Weed Sci. 41:144149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar